(Super. Ct. No. JV130370)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
The minor entered an admission to misdemeanor battery and was placed on probation with various conditions. Following a restitution hearing, the minor was ordered to pay victim restitution in the amount of $5,108.57.
The minor appeals, claiming the juvenile court erred by ordering restitution for property stolen from the victim by a third person and for failing to state the calculation method it used to determine the amount of restitution. Although we conclude that neither of these claims has merit, we will order a modification of the restitution order to correct a duplication in the billing submitted by the victim and an error in computing the amount of the total restitution to be paid directly to the victim.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to a statement by the minor, he was in a convenience store with his brother and two friends when they encountered the victim, who made a disparaging comment that included a racial epithet. The minor became engaged in a physical altercation with the victim, during which time a cell phone and other items were stolen from the victim. The minor denied taking anything from the victim and, according to the deputy district attorney, a video of the incident showed that a third person "snatched" the victim's cell phone "as a result of" the assault. Following the altercation, the victim's front tooth was bleeding and loose.
The victim submitted a claim for restitution in the amount of $5,108.57 for dental treatment, medication, and the replacement of his cell phone. At a restitution hearing, the victim testified that he sustained a cracked tooth as a result of the incident and verified that he had incurred $5,108.57 in expenses. He acknowledged that he did not go through his insurance to pay for his injury and, instead, went through "victims of violent crime."
During the hearing, the minor's attorney raised concerns about "double charges for the same treatment." Exhibits were admitted substantiating the various expenses incurred by the victim. The deputy district attorney confirmed that the victim had been compensated for some of his expenses through the victim restitution fund, but as the minor was responsible for reimbursing these amounts, the total amount of restitution remained unchanged.
As relevant here, the minor's attorney argued that the victim failed to mitigate his damages by not utilizing his insurance to pay his medical expenses and that the theft of the victim's cell phone was not reasonably related to the battery committed by the minor.
The juvenile court ordered the minor to pay the full amount of restitution sought by the victim, identifying $1,702.59 as the amount owed directly to the victim and $3,477.98 as the amount paid out by the victim's restitution fund. The court included reimbursement for the victim's cell phone in this amount, noting "it was lost during the course of events set into motion by the minor's conduct and is clearly a result of his conduct."
The minor maintains the juvenile court erred by ordering restitution for the victim's cell phone and by "failing to make a clear statement of [its] calculation method" for setting ...